Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional laparoscopic technique for ileostomy: a retrospective cohort study

  • How-I-Do-It article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Minimal-invasive surgery has gained wide acceptance in colorectal surgery. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was designed to minimize surgical trauma and improve postoperative outcome. However, the role of SILS in ileostomy formation is unclear.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study 26 patients were included. Six patients were operated with SILS and 20 with conventional laparoscopic technique for ileostomy. We retrospectively evaluated patient charts for baseline characteristics including prior abdominal surgeries and combination of surgeries. Our primary efficacy objectives were operation time and postoperative hospitalization days. Our safety objectives included the prevalence of postoperative pain, parastomal hernia, incisional hernia, perforation, wound infection, ileus, and infections in general.

Results

Baseline characteristics including previous abdominal surgery and concomitant surgeries were comparable in both groups. Total operation time using SILS (37.5 ± 6.2 min [mean ± SD]), compared to laparoscopic surgery (82.2 ± 54.8 min [mean ± SD]) was significantly shorter (p = 0.0002). In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients with combined surgery, ileostomy formation by SILS was shorter (36.5 ± 6.2 min [mean ± SD]), compared to laparoscopy (59.7 ± 28.7 min [mean ± SD]; p = 0.024). Length of postoperative stay was not statistically different between the groups (SILS: 5.5 ± 2.4 days [mean ± SD]; laparoscopic: 13.8 ± 17.3 days [mean ± SD], p = 0.193). Postoperative complication rates were low and comparable in both groups.

Conclusion

Placement of a loop ileostomy using SILS technique not only reduces surgical trauma but also operation time without affecting postoperative hospital stay or postoperative complication rates. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for ileostomy is an appealing approach for ileostomy in selected patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The data used in the manuscript are not publicly available.

Code availability

Not applicable

References

  1. Hiranyakas A, Rather A, da Silva G, Weiss EG, Wexner SD (2013) Loop ileostomy closure after laparoscopic versus open surgery: is there a difference? Surg Endosc. 27(1):90–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Madhoun N, Keller DS, Haas EM (2015) Review of single incision laparoscopic surgery in colorectal surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 21(38):10824–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Keller DS, Haas EM (2015) Single-incision laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 28(3):135–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moreno-Sanz C, Morandeira-Rivas A, Sedano-Vizcaino C, Tenias-Burillo JM, Roman-Ortiz C, de la Espada JB (2015) Single-incision laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 11(1):248–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs NC, Ostermann S, Morel P (2011) Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 98(12):1695–702

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kye BH, Lee J, Kim W, Kim D, Lee D (2013) Comparative study between single-incision and three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 23(5):431–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Antoniou SA, Koch OO, Antoniou GA, Lasithiotakis K, Chalkiadakis GE, Pointner R et al (2014) Meta-analysis of randomized trials on single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. Am J Surg. 207(4):613–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Haueter R, Schutz T, Raptis DA, Clavien PA, Zuber M (2017) Meta-analysis of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy comparing body image and cosmesis. Br J Surg. 104(9):1141–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Taniguchi K, Iida R, Ota K, Asakuma M, Uchiyama K, Takasu A (2018) Single-port surgery (SPS) strategy for small bowel obstruction (SBO) caused by postoperative internal hernia: a series case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 97(13):e0269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vidal O, Ginesta C, Valentini M, Marti J, Benarroch G, Garcia-Valdecasas JC (2011) Suprapubic single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: a nonvisible-scar surgical option. Surg Endosc. 25(4):1019–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hawasli A, Kandeel A, Meguid A (2010) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC): a refined technique. Am J Surg. 199(3):289–93 (discussion 93)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pfluke JM, Parker M, Stauffer JA, Paetau AA, Bowers SP, Asbun HJ et al (2011) Laparoscopic surgery performed through a single incision: a systematic review of the current literature. J Am Coll Surg. 212(1):113–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zaghiyan KN, Murrell Z, Fleshner PR (2011) Scarless single-incision laparoscopic loop ileostomy: a novel technique. Dis Colon Rectum. 54(12):1542–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shah A, Moftah M, Hadi Nahar Al-Furaji H, Cahill RA. Standardized technique for single port laparoscopic ileostomy and colostomy. Colorectal Dis. 2014;16(7):O248–O252.

  15. Greaves N, Nicholson J (2011) Single incision laparoscopic surgery in general surgery: a review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 93(6):437–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland

    Carmen Portenkirchner, Matthias Turina & Andreas Rickenbacher

Authors
  1. Carmen Portenkirchner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Turina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Rickenbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CP, MT, and AR designed the study. CP reviewed patient charts and collected the data. AR performed ileostomy by SILS technique. CP, MT, and AR analyzed and interpreted the results. CP, MT, and AR wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmen Portenkirchner.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The local ethics committee approved the current study (KEH-ZH-Nr. 2019-00208).

Consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

All authors reviewed the final version of the manuscript and approved its submission.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (MP4 386419 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Portenkirchner, C., Turina, M. & Rickenbacher, A. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional laparoscopic technique for ileostomy: a retrospective cohort study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 407, 1757–1763 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-022-02473-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-022-02473-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation